I could not roll my eyes harder at you right now.
The definition of Tribal Epistemology.
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
I could not roll my eyes harder at you right now.
The definition of Tribal Epistemology.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You are rolling your eyes at me for asking someone's opinion on something that happened in the trial we are discussing in this thread? Well I'm rolling my eyes even harder at you. So there.
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
So, I'm going to take your question in good faith and assume you aren't being sarcastic, because I think you're a good dude, and I want to believe you intended it that way.
My answer: I don't think so-- but I'm interested, if you have a link. Honestly. Message me privately, even, if you don't want to discuss it in the thread.
And listen, I heard part of Sekulow's presentation and all of Dershowitz's, and sincerely found their comments-- if I'm listening to learn-- incredibly interesting. They aren't making it easy for the House Managers. I have no doubt their examples where past presidents were accused and acquitted of abuse of power allegations can be argued with equally strong examples, though. And I also have no doubt recent presidents-- I have no problem saying Obama, even-- did things that may have qualified as abuses of power, under the House Managers' definition. But here's the thing: Nobody considered those abuses egregious enough to do something about it. I'm not terribly interested in "but Obama/Hilary/Biden/name-your-Democrat did it first!" conversations. We are way too hung up on that, in our dogmatic defense of whichever side of this issue we are on. I believe our politicians should very simply be held to a higher standard, and if it starts with the guy who not only engages in misconduct behind closed doors, but also behaves like a complete jackass publicly, then all the better-- let's start there. Then we apply that same standard to the not-so-public actions of future presidents-- Republican, Democrat, or otherwise-- regardless of their public image. But honestly, enough with what other people may or may not have gotten away with as a reason to excuse Trump... or anybody else, for that matter.
Last edited:
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
Maybe I am; maybe I do. It was just a joke, and my tiny pea brain was only processing the fairly public threats made by Trump & Senate Trumpians to their own colleagues, who-- whether you like them or loathe them for it as a Republican voter-- are just trying to remain objective and honest with themselves, as near as I can tell. <shrug>
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what it is about my comment that's raising people's hackles. I thought what I was saying was directly relevant to your earlier comments, and if it is not I sincerely don't understand why. I don't remember the name of the lawyer who was handling that part of the defense so I'm not exactly sure how I'd find it in all those hours and hours of impeachment hearings, but IMO he did a very clear job of laying things out.So, I'm going to take your question in good faith and assume you aren't being sarcastic, because I think you're a good dude, and I want to believe you intended it that way.
My answer: I don't think so-- but I'm interested, if you have a link. Honestly. Message me privately, even, if you don't want to discuss it in the thread.
And listen, I heard part of Sekulow's presentation and all of Dershowitz's, and sincerely found their comments-- if I'm listening to learn-- incredibly interesting. They aren't making it easy for the House Managers. I have no doubt their examples where past presidents were accused and acquitted of abuse of power allegations can be argued with equally strong examples, though. And I also have no doubt recent presidents-- I have no problem saying Obama, even-- did things that may have qualified as abuses of power, under the House Managers' definition. But here's the thing: Nobody considered those abuses egregious enough to do something about it. I'm not terribly interested in "but Obama/Hilary/Biden/name-your-Democrat did it first!" conversations. We are way too hung up on that, in our dogmatic defense of whichever side of this issue we are on. I believe our politicians should very simply be held to a higher standard, and if it starts with the guy who not only engages in misconduct behind closed doors, but also behaves like a complete jackass publicly, then all the better-- let's start there. Then we apply that same standard to the not-so-public actions of future presidents-- Republican, Democrat, or otherwise-- regardless of their public image. But honestly, enough with what other people may or may not have gotten away with as a reason to excuse Trump... or anybody else, for that matter.
Many Republicans, including me, believe that the anti-Trump crowd has been determined to impeach him. They don't really care why, just get Trump out of office somehow, some way. This angle of defense by Trump's team appears to simply be an effort to say that the charges against Trump could have been brought against other presidents but they have not been because prior to this congress, nobody has considered these sorts of acts to be impeachable. I know that very few (if any) of the pro-impeachment crowd around here is going to agree with me, but I believe that both sides are looking at all of these issues in a highly partisan way. I do not think a president should be removed for partisan reasons.
I saw where you, and the GOP just can't get over Obama
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Really? I saw where you, and the Dems just can't get over Hitler.
gandalfe
Well-Known Member
Do you really think we SHOULD get over Hitler? I mean, seriously?
I actually read recently that over 50% of Americans don't know how many people died in the Nazi concentration camps or that Hitler was legally appointed chancellor and then president when the former president died, all perfectly legally.
I think it's true that Obama had more flexibility after the election, as a second-term President. I think all second-term Presidents have more flexibility, especially in foreign affairs. Do you think that's not true? Do you have any reason to attach some nefarious meaning to that? That's why everyone else tok your comment so poorly, because you were making such a clearly inapt comparison.
Why is this relevant to Trump using taxpayer dollars for his personal gain? Perhaps you could name a time Obama did that?
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
It’s at least once per show Hannity brings up that flexibility thing without context. It’s quite amazing. That and the, “they cling to their guns and religion” bit. Such a simple show.
Getting Traded
Banned
As part of the anti-Trump crowd, I don't want to impeach him because he's a horrible human being, which he most definitely is, but because the policies he supports are ruining our nation politically, jeopardizing our relationships with our allies, worsening our environment, increasing Global Warming, making the rich richer and destroying the middle class, encouraging white supremacy, and taking away protections for the poor while increasing the military budget. I hate him on many levels. I just want him out but obviously his party is standing behind him and we'll have to vote him out.
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
Yeah, me neither, but you can't always interpret tone from written communications. Maybe everyone just misread you. It's all good-- I get your meaning.
You (and Republican voters in general) are certainly entitled to feel the way you do-- I can respect why you might, and felt similarly defensive about the unrelenting refusal by Republican lawmakers to work with Obama during his tenure. Even today, my knee-jerk reaction to most of the stuff still said about him by Republicans is that much of the venom comes from people who are uneducated, racist, etc. It's not fair for me to immediately cast presumably good people into those sorts of categories, and I like to think I ultimately bridle that instinct well, but that's how little sense their comments make to me on the surface. Most of my family falls into that camp, actually. It illustrates the giant divides between how people think in this country, and I believe the bitterness comes mainly from the inability of people to put their initial feelings/thoughts aside in the spirit of figuring sh** out for the betterment of everyone. It's really too bad.
This angle you've described-- it's interesting to think about, isn't it? I don't know, honestly, if charges like those brought against Trump weren't brought against Obama, for example, simply because Republicans didn't believe his alleged misconduct merited impeachment. You could be right. It also seems possible to me they considered some of his actions impeachable, but just lacked the courage/audacity/whatever to push the charges forward the way the Democrats have with Trump. The political environment may have been such they didn't feel encouraged by the idea of doing it-- that they perhaps stood to lose too much by doing so. I'm really stretching into hypotheticals here, because I just don't know. All I can say for certain is I am unconvinced that the charges against Trump are somehow baseless, or fall short of what the Founders might have considered impeachable. It is a little too convenient for me to swallow that there were identical concerns about Obama, and Republicans didn't take action on those equal charges because they weren't worthy of impeachment. That just feels like a somewhat thinly-veiled attempt to dismiss this whole thing with a sound bite. Despite my personal distaste for Trump, though, I am earnestly trying to remain objective, learn more from both the House Managers and Trump's defense team, and remain open so that my reasons are NOT solely partisan. I would really like to hear from witnesses and see actual evidence allowed in these hearings (I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation why none of this has been allowed), and would happily be convinced otherwise by it.
Last edited:
I do not think the prosecution has proved their case enough to impeach. Not at this point.
Impeachment should be a high bar. That bar has not been met.
I think the House Dems should have allowed their subpoenas to go to the supreme court. They seem to have the attitude that they could pass impeachment so that was good enough. I feel like they should have demanded all the evidence and witnesses possible and let the Supreme Court have the final word on what would be allowed or not.
They failed to do that.
The Senate has little to work with. It's not enough to impeach. It just isn't.
This is over. Time for the 2020 election.
Any functioning adult is getting my vote.
Impeachment should be a high bar. That bar has not been met.
I think the House Dems should have allowed their subpoenas to go to the supreme court. They seem to have the attitude that they could pass impeachment so that was good enough. I feel like they should have demanded all the evidence and witnesses possible and let the Supreme Court have the final word on what would be allowed or not.
They failed to do that.
The Senate has little to work with. It's not enough to impeach. It just isn't.
This is over. Time for the 2020 election.
Any functioning adult is getting my vote.
Or, you know, the Senate could actually hold a trial and allow the House managers to call witnesses...
But anyway I completely disagree. Even without any additional witnesses the case against Trump is overwhelming.
Have you guys seen https://www.presidentpence.com/?
Love the slogans
"Pence: well I guess he'll do"
"Pence: he can't be any worse"
"Pence: please make it stop"
And the comparison table
Love the slogans
"Pence: well I guess he'll do"
"Pence: he can't be any worse"
"Pence: please make it stop"
And the comparison table